DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 12-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter (GB 1,558,162).
Porter ‘162 is directed to a latex composition comprising an inorganic filler (e.g. whitening agents and limestones) and a blend of styrene butadiene rubber latex (SBR) and natural rubber latex (NR) (Page 2, Line 52-Page 3, Line 21). Porter ‘162 further states that preferred compositions include SBR latex and blends of SBR latex and up to 50% of NR latex. This disclosure corresponds with an elastomeric component comprising between 50% and 100% of SBR latex and between 0% and 50% of NR latex. While Porter ‘162 fails to expressly teach a NR latex loading between 3% and 15%, such a range is fully encompassed by the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use SBR latex and NR latex loadings in accordance to the claimed invention absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (lack of comparative examples including a blend of SBR latex and NR latex with loadings outside that required by the claimed invention).
Regarding claim 2, calcium carbonate represents one of the most well known and conventional whitening materials used in the manufacture of filled rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to calcium carbonate in the composition of Porter absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (lack of comparative examples with whitening materials different from calcium carbonate).
As to claims 4, 5, and 18, Porter ‘162 teaches inorganic filler loadings as high as 325 phr and such would result in loadings in accordance to the claimed invention (325/425 is approximately 76 percent) (Page 3, Lines 5+).
Regarding claim 6, the claimed loadings are fully encompassed by the disclosure of Porter ‘162 and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results.
As to claim 8, Porter ‘162 refers to the inclusion of further amounts of surface active agents or surfactants and such suggests the inclusion of surfactants (Page 2, Lines 26-33).
With respect to claims 12-14, the claims are directed to a latex composition and limitations pertaining to an intended use of said latex composition fail to further define the makeup of the claimed composition.
As to claims 16 and 17, Porter ‘162 refers to a total solids content greater than 82% (Page 1, Lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 19, Porter ‘162 is directed to the application of a latex composition to a carpet (Page 3, Lines 39+) and such can be broadly viewed as a primary or secondary backing layer of a carpet.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter ‘162 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Gribble (US 6,271,276).
As detailed above, Porter ‘162 is directed to latex compositions including surfactants. As to the loading and type of surfactant, that required by the claims is consistent with common dispersions or compositions designed for foams in carpet applications, such as that of Porter ‘162, as shown for example by Gribble (Abstract and Column 6, Lines 5-28). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use conventional surfactants at conventional loadings given the general disclosure of Porter ‘162 and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed surfactant loading and/or surfactant type.
5. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter ‘162 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Hanlon (WO 00/34020).
As detailed above, Porter ‘162 recognizes the known inclusion of a variety of conventional additives (Page 1, Lines 5+). While Porter ‘162 fails to expressly disclose the inclusion of a thickener, such is well recognized as being a conventional additive in latex compositions designed for carpets, as shown for example by Hanlon (Page 5, Lines 3+ and Page 8, Lines 1-5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include conventional thickeners at conventional loadings in the latex composition of Porter ‘162 absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results (consistent with the general disclosure of Porter ‘162 to include conventional additives).
6. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanlon (WO 0034020).
Hanlon is directed to a latex composition comprising up to 1000 phr of inorganic filler (e.g. calcium carbonate) and a blend or combination of latex materials (Page 4, Lines 12+ and Page 5, Lines 3+). More specifically, Hanlon suggests the use of styrene butadiene rubber latex and natural rubber latex. While Hanlon is silent with respect to the claimed loadings, the general disclosure of Hanlon to use a blend or mixture of latex materials is seen to encompass the claimed loadings and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results (lack of comparative examples including a blend of SBR latex and NR latex with loadings outside that required by the claimed invention). Additionally, Applicant has not provided any comparative examples comprising a blend of latex materials (any realized benefits, for example, might be a result of simply using a blend of latex materials independent of the type of latex materials).
Regarding claim 2, Hanlon teaches the inclusion of calcium carbonate (Page 4, Lines 3+).
As to claims 3-5 and 18, Hanlon teaches inorganic filler loadings as high as 1000 phr and such would result in loadings in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claimed loadings are fully encompassed by the general disclosure of Hanlon and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results. With specific respect to claim 7, Hanlon suggests the use of polymers comprising styrene, butadiene, and acrylate (Page 4, Lines 25+).
As to claims 8-11, Hanlon refers to the inclusion of surfactants (Page 5, Lines 3+) and teaches an exemplary loading of 1.9 phr (Page 7, Lines 31+).
With respect to claims 12-14, the claims are directed to a latex composition and limitations pertaining to an intended use of said latex composition fail to further define the makeup of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 15, Hanlon teaches an exemplary latex composition comprising 1.2phr of a thickener (Page 8, Lines 1+).
As to claims 16 and 17, Hanlon refers to a total solids content between 45 and 90 weight percent (Page 5, Lines 13-15).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Hanlon describes a method in which a carpet backing (primary backing layer) and a carpet top layer (secondary backing layer) are bonded with said latex composition (Page 1, Lines 4+).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights